Is your belief in God, entirely dependent upon

[Elijah John]

Is your belief in God entirely dependent upon your belief that Jesus himself is God, the 2nd person of the Trinity?

If the arguments of skeptics here on these boards, or the arguments of Historical Jesus Scholars such as Bart Ehrmann or John Dominic Crossan, or even the arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Jews suddenly clicked in your mind, with a light-bulb-"aha" realization that Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries every called him "God", what would you do?

Would you retain your general belief in God, as Father? Would you join another religion such as Islam or Judaism? Would you attempt to salvage what you can of Chrisitanity in a unitarian (small "u" not necessarily UU) fashion?

Or would that discovery cause you to become an atheist or an agnostic?

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

I sincerely think Jesus never saw himself as God. As a matter of fact in today's reading from Mark 9 : 37 we have "and anyone who welcomes me (Jesus) welcomes NOT me but the one who sent me." In other words he is God's representative, as is the Holy Father and the Pope is not God.

Funny, I read those words, "and anyone who welcomes me (Jesus) welcomes NOT me but the one who sent me." to mean when we welcome Christ we in fact are welcoming God as well because they are one and the same.

That in combination with gobs of other Scripture, as well as what the early Church taught! We can be assured of Christ’s Divinity.

Have a nice Sunday and warm wishes (whatever that means ) as well.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

I sincerely think Jesus never saw himself as God. As a matter of fact in today's reading from Mark 9 : 37 we have "and anyone who welcomes me (Jesus) welcomes NOT me but the one who sent me." In other words he is God's representative, as is the Holy Father and the Pope is not God.

Funny, I read those words, "and anyone who welcomes me (Jesus) welcomes NOT me but the one who sent me." to mean when we welcome Christ we in fact are welcoming God as well because they are one and the same.

That's why I quoted it for you. It can be taken in two ways, with perfect meaning.

Jesus is God himself. This would normally be an absurd interpretation were the Trinity not defined to circumvent absurdity.

Jesus is God's representative; everything Jesus says is what the Father has told him to say, so that his words are Truth, and he is the Way. There is no requirement to accept absurdities in this interpretation and it makes perfect sense. Each time there is dubiety, we can go for a figurative meaning. The exception is the words of Thomas: but they rely on an exact formulation of what Thomas said in a simple exclamation. I don't think reportage covers verbatim statements. And I do not have the words in the language Thomas used - just their remembered phraseology, in translation several times. That's insufficient to claim a miraculous mystery.


For me Christ never uttered the words "I AM GOD." And that makes all the difference. He behaved as if he were not God. and that is significant. He begged that the chalice be taken away and that requres him to be unaware of his own deity. It makes more sense to have Christ as human: "the beloved son in whom God was well pleased." And son is just a term of endearment.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

For me Christ never uttered the words "I AM GOD." And that makes all the difference. He behaved as if he were not God. and that is significant.

First, He in fact did say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.� Hmmm . . . doesn’t sound like a 33 year old prophet standing before them.

Also, I completely disagree that He behaved as if He were not God. Everything He did and said was acting as if He is God. “The Father and I are one.�

He begged that the chalice be taken away and that requires him to be unaware of his own deity.

Nope. When Jesus petitions the Father, “Let this cup pass from me,� He expresses the natural human desire to avoid pain and suffering. Why does every non Christian want to place Jesus either only human or only divine? Jesus is fully God AND He is also fully human.


You do realize for you to argue that Jesus never said He was God in those exact words while on earth solely because there is no record within the New Testament that He did is nothing more than an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy, right?

For Jesus to say that He was God would have meant that He was claiming to be the same Person as God the Father. This would be confusing for many, as He had not yet demonstrated He in fact is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus was not the same Person as the Father, but was personally distinct from him, although sharing the same essence and nature with him. This needed to be something realized and recognized via His words and behavior.

Also, the early Church did not initially have to counter doubt that Jesus was divine. The first heresies to pop up were denying Christ’s humanity. Docetism not Arianism was the first deviation from Christianity. I’d call that both interesting and significant.

The New Testament is full of those who understood Christ to be making Himself out to be God, while also making Himself out to be distinct. The New Testament writers show this . . .

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." Romans 9:5

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13

"But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’" Hebrews 1:8

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:" 2 Peter 1:1

And then we see after the Resurrection the Church referring to Jesus as God.

Yes, yes, it doesn’t fit your , ‘Jesus was just a good man who lived along time ago that people made into a god’ theory. It’s complex and mysterious and even crazy, but as they say sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

[marco]

First, He in fact did say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.� Hmmm . . . doesn’t sound like a 33 year old prophet standing before them.

(a) Christ was hundreds of years old
(b) There's a sensible figurative interpretation.

“The Father and I are one.�

(a) The 30-year old man is God (b) There is a sensible figurative interpretation

When Jesus petitions the Father, “Let this cup pass from me,� He expresses the natural human desire to avoid pain and suffering. Why does every non Christian want to place Jesus either only human or only divine? Jesus is fully God AND He is also fully human.

(a) Jesus the god doesn't know what Jesus the man does but Jesus acts as god by working miracles. (b) Jesus is a man, afraid of what is to happen.

You do realize for you to argue that Jesus never said He was God in those exact words while on earth solely because there is no record within the New Testament that He did is nothing more than an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy, right?

An argument from silence refers to the lack of mention of an event in history or in the texts. It does not mean the silence of a historical character. For the claim: Jesus is God it is absolutely reasonable to expect Jesus to have said he was.

The Trinity is the work of the Council of Nicaea.

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:" 2 Peter 1:1

This is a good example of MAKING words fit what we think. The Latin Vulgate (used by the RC Church) says:

Simon Petrus, servus et apostolus Jesu Christi, iis qui coæqualem nobiscum sortiti sunt fidem in justitia Dei nostri, et Salvatoris Jesu Christi.


The last part should be translated as: "in the justice (or righteousness) of our God - COMMA- , and of our Saviour Jesus Christ. " Jesus is not placed in apposition to God; they are separated by a comma because they are separate.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

The last part should be translated as . . .

Should it? Perhaps you should put it in the Church's suggestion box.

[JehovahsWitness]

COLOSSIANS 2:3

He's omniscient (all-knowing):


Colossians 2:2-3 . . . Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

QUESTION Does Colossians 2 verse 3 prove Jesus is omniscient?

No. Colossians speaks of Jesus having "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" it doesn't speak of having all wisdom and knowledge. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a treasure in the following way:

TREASURE

Something valuable (such as money, jewels, gold, or silver) that is hidden or kept in a safe place.
source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treasure

So from Colossians 2:3 we can conclude that Jesus has all the "special, valuable, hidden" knowledge and wisdom but in qualifying his knowledge the verse obviously is implying that his knowledge has some limits.


JW





RELATED POSTS

Were there things Jesus admitted he did not know?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 039#864039

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to marco]

The last part should be translated as . . .

Should it? Perhaps you should put it in the Church's suggestion box.

2 Peter 1:17-19 should dispel your belief.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

The last part should be translated as . . .

Should it? Perhaps you should put it in the Church's suggestion box.

I take it this means you think my translation of the simple Latin is incorrect. I taught Latin. The translators would have no problem understanding the meaning of the Latin words. They require no correction, for the English rendering given is correct but ambiguous; the Latin version is not ambiguous.

For the words: Dei nostri, et Salvatoris Jesu Christi.


Dei nostri : is a genitive - of our God

the comma, with the "et" - "and", means there is another genitive coming.
Salvatoris Jesu Christi means "of Jesus Christ" and so the translation, without the remotest shdow of a doubt, is
"of our God, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ". This rendering is unambiguous.

Were the Latin to have the meaning you attach to the words we would have

Dei nostri et Salvatoris, Jesu Christi: of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

There is nothing to correct in what has been written but there is something to correct in how the words have been misunderstood. It is the Vulgate version I examined since that is the one the Church has used for the translation which, I repeat, is not wrong but presents an ambiguity which is cleared up when the Latin is examined.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

The last part should be translated as . . .

Should it? Perhaps you should put it in the Church's suggestion box.

2 Peter 1:17-19 should dispel your belief.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I translated a piece of simple Latin which recognises the righteousness of God and the righteousness of Jesus. The words do not suggest Jesus is God. There may be a text somewhere that does offer this suggestion. It is not this one.

You refer me to this, which will somehow change my entire view of Latin translation:

"17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.�[a] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. "


This imaginative rendering still does not have the Creator of the universe recognising Jesus as co-creator or assistant God. The words say that God is happy with one of his children, for we are the children of God - or some of us are.

The poetic footnotes in 19 are just that. I see nothing whatsoever to suggest Jesus is God and I see nothing at all to connect this passage with the one I commented on.

[JehovahsWitness]

EPHESIANS 1:22-23

He's omnipresent (present everywhere):

Ephesians 1:22-23

EPHESIANS 1:22-23 - NABRE

And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Emphasis MINE

QUESTION: Does Ephesians 1:22-23 support the idea that Jesus is ominpresent?


No, Ephesians is speaking of Christs leadership, notably of the church. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishop website, states:

Christ in turn fills the church and the believer (Eph 3:19; 5:18). But the difficult phrases here may also allow the church to be viewed as the “complement� of Christ who is “being filled� as God’s plan for the universe is carried out through the church (cf. Eph 3:9–10).

Source: http://www.usccb.org/bible/ephesians/1#57001023-1

Paul in the same chapter (Ephesians 1) speaks of God " raising [Christ] from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens" and since there is no reference in this verse to Christ at the same time being elsewhere, there is absolutely nothing in this passage that supports or even suggests the resurrected Christ is "omnipresent".



JW



FURTHER READING

Trinity so called "proof" texts: Debunked
http://searchforbibletruths.blsogspot.c ... texts.html